apple-design-principles

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Apple Design Principles — Evaluation & Critique Framework

Apple设计原则——评估与评审框架

From Apple's WWDC26 session "Principles of great design" (Linda & Doug, Design Evangelists at Apple).

"Design is making something with intention. It's focusing on what's most important to people, so you can build something they will truly value."

来自苹果WWDC26大会的「卓越设计原则」环节（主讲人：苹果设计推广专家Linda与Doug）。

「设计是带着意图创造事物。它聚焦于人们最关心的内容，这样你才能打造出他们真正珍视的产品。」

How to use this skill

如何使用此技能

When asked to review, critique, score, or guide a design decision:

Identify what is being designed or reviewed (screen, feature, flow, product, component)
Evaluate through each of the 8 principles below — only spend depth on the ones that are relevant; don't force all 8 if the question is narrow
Surface tensions — note where principles pull against each other and explain the tradeoff
Recommend — end with concrete, actionable next steps, not just observations

For a full design critique, produce a scorecard (see format at the bottom). For a targeted question ("is this too complex?"), just address the relevant principle(s) directly and concisely.

当被要求评审、批评、评分或指导设计决策时：

明确设计或评审对象（界面、功能、流程、产品、组件）
评估以下8项原则——仅针对相关原则深入分析；若问题范围较窄，无需强行覆盖全部8项
指出矛盾点——记录原则之间的冲突之处，并解释权衡关系
给出建议——结尾提供具体、可执行的下一步方案，而非仅停留在观察层面

如需完整的设计评审，请生成一份评分卡（格式见文末）。若为针对性问题（如“这个设计是不是太复杂了？”），则直接针对相关原则简洁作答即可。

The 8 Principles

8项设计原则

1. Purpose

1. 目的性

Design with intention. Every feature asks something of the person using it — their time, attention, and trust.

Key questions to ask:

Does this serve a real need people actually have?
Would removing this feature make the product better?
Are you building this because it's genuinely useful, or because it's technically possible?

Red flags: Feature bloat, unclear value proposition, solutions looking for problems, screens that exist "just in case."

Rule of thumb: Choosing what NOT to build is as important as what you build. If you can't articulate the human benefit in one sentence, reconsider it.

带着明确意图进行设计。每个功能都会占用用户的时间、注意力和信任。

核心问题：

该功能是否满足用户的真实需求？
删除此功能是否会让产品变得更好？
开发此功能是因为它真正实用，还是因为技术上可行？

**警示信号：**功能冗余、价值主张模糊、为解决问题而强行创造方案、存在“以防万一”的界面。

**经验法则：**选择不开发的内容与选择开发的内容同样重要。如果你无法用一句话阐述其对用户的价值，请重新考量。

2. Agency

2. 自主性

People need to feel in control. They should be able to explore at their own pace, do things their way, and recover from mistakes without anxiety.

Key questions to ask:

Can people undo any action they might accidentally take?
Are you interrupting people for things that don't warrant an interruption?
Are you forcing a single path, or allowing exploration?

Forgiveness mechanism: Make undo trivially easy. Use confirmation dialogs only before truly destructive, irreversible actions — not as a habit. When people know they can recover, they explore more confidently.

Red flags: Irreversible actions with no warning, confirmation dialogs on every tap, forced linear flows with no escape, no undo.

用户需要掌控感。他们应该能够按照自己的节奏探索、以自己的方式操作，并且无需焦虑地从错误中恢复。

核心问题：

用户能否撤销任何可能误操作的行为？
你是否因无关紧要的事情打扰用户？
你是强制用户走单一流程，还是允许他们自由探索？

**容错机制：**让撤销操作变得极其简单。仅在真正具有破坏性、不可逆转的操作前使用确认对话框——不要养成习惯。当用户知道可以恢复时，他们会更自信地探索。

**警示信号：**无预警的不可逆操作、每次点击都弹出确认对话框、无法退出的强制线性流程、无撤销功能。

3. Responsibility

3. 责任感

Act in people's best interest, not just your product's interest. Privacy is a human right.

Key questions to ask:

Are you only collecting data you genuinely need?
Are permission prompts contextually explained? (Would you trust a stranger who asked for your phone number with no context?)
If using AI: have you anticipated how the model could fail or cause harm?
Have you added appropriate safeguards — preview, confirmation, disclaimer — before AI-generated actions are taken?

AI design checklist:

What happens when the model is wrong?
Could the output cause physical, emotional, or financial harm?
If the risk outweighs the value: remove the feature entirely, don't just add a disclaimer.

Red flags: Permission requests without context, unexplained data collection, AI acting without confirmation, no recovery path from model errors.

以用户的最大利益为出发点，而非仅考虑产品自身利益。隐私是一项人权。

核心问题：

你是否仅收集真正需要的数据？
权限请求是否有上下文说明？（你会信任一个毫无理由就索要你电话号码的陌生人吗？）
若使用AI：你是否预判了模型可能出现的故障或造成的伤害？
在执行AI生成的操作前，你是否添加了适当的保障措施——预览、确认、免责声明？

AI设计检查清单：

模型出错时会发生什么？
输出内容是否可能造成身体、情感或财务伤害？
若风险大于价值：完全移除该功能，而非仅添加免责声明。

**警示信号：**无上下文的权限请求、未说明的数据收集、AI未经确认擅自操作、无模型错误恢复路径。

4. Familiarity

4. 熟悉感

Build on what people already know — from the real world and from established platform conventions.

Key questions to ask:

Does this metaphor help people predict behavior? (Not too literal, not too abstract)
Are things that look the same behaving the same?
Are you following platform conventions where they exist? (Close = top-left on Mac, swipe back on iPhone, etc.)
Are you reinventing something that doesn't need reinventing?

Metaphor calibration: A trash can for delete = correct (established, not too literal). A trash can for archive = broken (violates expectation). An abstract icon with no connection to prior knowledge = confusing.

Red flags: Inventing new patterns for standard actions, inconsistent placement of controls, visual similarity between things that behave differently, gestures that conflict with system defaults.

基于用户已有的认知进行设计——包括现实世界和已确立的平台惯例。

核心问题：

该隐喻是否有助于用户预测行为？（既不过于直白，也不过于抽象）
外观相同的元素行为是否一致？
你是否遵循了已有的平台惯例？（比如Mac上的关闭按钮在左上角，iPhone上的返回操作是滑动等）
你是否在重新发明无需创新的事物？

**隐喻校准：**用垃圾桶图标代表删除=正确（已确立，不过于直白）。用垃圾桶图标代表归档=错误（违背预期）。无关联认知的抽象图标=令人困惑。

**警示信号：**为标准操作创造新模式、控件位置不一致、外观相似但行为不同的元素、与系统默认手势冲突的操作。

5. Flexibility

5. 灵活性

People use things in unpredictable contexts and have vastly different needs.

Key questions to ask:

Does this work for someone with different accessibility needs (visual, motor, cognitive)?
Have you designed for the specific strengths of each platform?
- iPhone: quick, glanceable, touch-first, single-hand use
- Mac: deep focus workflows, precise pointer, keyboard shortcuts, multiple windows
Does this work on the go, at home, and in between?
Can people make this their own — rearrange, hide, customize?

Inclusive design mindset: Age, language fluency, technical skill level, and physical ability all vary in your audience. The best flexibility often comes from letting people personalize rather than picking a single "correct" configuration.

Red flags: iPhone UIs that require two hands, Mac interfaces with no keyboard support, no accessibility labels, one-size-fits-all layouts that ignore context.

用户会在不可预测的场景中使用产品，且需求差异极大。

核心问题：

该设计是否适合有不同无障碍需求的用户（视觉、运动、认知障碍）？
你是否针对各平台的优势进行设计？
- iPhone：快捷、易浏览、触控优先、单手握持
- Mac：深度专注工作流、精准指针、键盘快捷键、多窗口
该设计是否能在外出、居家等不同场景下使用？
用户能否自定义产品——重新排列、隐藏、个性化设置？

**包容性设计思维：**受众的年龄、语言流利度、技术水平和身体能力各不相同。最佳的灵活性通常来自让用户个性化设置，而非选择单一“正确”的配置。

**警示信号：**需要双手操作的iPhone界面、无键盘支持的Mac界面、无无障碍标签、忽略场景的通用布局。

6. Simplicity

6. 简洁性

Strip away everything that doesn't serve the core purpose. This is not the same as minimalism.

Two levers:

Conciseness — reduce friction:

Use plain language, not jargon
Fewer steps to complete a task
No redundant elements or repeated information
Get to the point

Clarity — reduce confusion:

Visual hierarchy answers: What do I look at? What can I tap? How do I do it?
Use order, spacing, and contrast to rank importance
Most important = most visually prominent
Every element must earn its place

Counter-intuitive insight: Sometimes adding information makes something simpler. A progress bar showing "3 min remaining" is simpler than one with no context — it resolves the user's anxiety without requiring action.

Red flags: Interfaces that look minimal but leave users confused about what to do, walls of controls with no hierarchy, jargon in labels, tasks that require 5 steps when 2 would do.

剔除所有不符合核心目的的内容。这不等同于极简主义。

两个关键维度：

简洁性——减少摩擦：

使用平实语言，而非专业术语
完成任务的步骤更少
无冗余元素或重复信息
直入主题

清晰度——减少困惑：

视觉层级需回答：我该看什么？我能点击什么？我该怎么做？
用顺序、间距和对比度区分重要性
最重要的内容=视觉上最突出的元素
每个元素都必须有存在的理由

反直觉洞察：有时添加信息会让设计更简洁。显示“剩余3分钟”的进度条比无上下文的进度条更简洁——它无需用户操作就能缓解焦虑。

**警示信号：**看似极简但让用户不知所措的界面、无层级的密集控件、标签使用专业术语、原本2步就能完成却需要5步的任务。

7. Craft

7. 精致度

Uncompromising attention to detail. Craft is the difference between something that feels polished and something that feels rushed.

What craft looks like:

Typography that responds beautifully across sizes and devices
Colors that adapt thoughtfully to light and dark mode
Animations that feel fluid and physically grounded, not decorative
Icons and graphics that are sharp at every resolution
A foundation that's reliable, fast, and doesn't break

Craft is ongoing, not a ship milestone. A design needs to be maintained over time — updated when new hardware ships, audited when new features are added, kept coherent as the product grows.

Red flags: Animations that lag or feel arbitrary, colors that don't adapt to dark mode, pixelated assets, type that overflows or clips, interactions that feel inconsistent across different parts of the product.

对细节的极致关注。精致度是区分“打磨完善”与“仓促完成”的关键。

精致设计的表现：

在不同尺寸和设备上都能完美适配的排版
能根据明暗模式智能调整的色彩
流畅且符合物理逻辑的动画，而非装饰性动画
在任何分辨率下都清晰的图标和图形
可靠、快速且稳定的基础体验

**精致度是持续的过程，而非发布里程碑。**设计需要随时间维护——新硬件发布时更新、添加新功能时审核、产品迭代时保持一致性。

**警示信号：**卡顿或无意义的动画、无法适配暗模式的色彩、像素化资源、溢出或截断的文本、产品不同部分交互不一致。

8. Delight

8. 愉悦感

Hard to define, instantly recognizable. Delight is not confetti — it's not a layer you add at the end.

How to design for delight:

Identify the emotion you want the person to feel (relaxed? confident? excited? powerful?)
Reinforce that emotion at every touchpoint throughout the experience — not just one moment
Make the experience feel human

The key insight: Delight is the natural result of getting all the other principles right. When someone has purpose-driven, agency-respecting, responsible, familiar, flexible, simple, and crafted experiences — the natural outcome is joy.

Red flags: Adding animations or flourishes that don't serve the user's emotion, calling something "delightful" because it has confetti, designing for wow-moments while the core experience is painful.

难以定义，但一眼就能识别。愉悦感不是五彩纸屑——它不是最后才添加的层。

如何设计出愉悦感：

确定你希望用户感受到的情绪（放松？自信？兴奋？有掌控力？）
在整个体验的每个触点强化这种情绪——而非仅在某个瞬间
让体验更具人性化

**核心洞察：**愉悦感是正确践行其他所有原则后的自然结果。当用户获得有目的性、尊重自主性、负责任、熟悉、灵活、简洁且精致的体验时，自然会产生愉悦感。

**警示信号：**添加不符合用户情绪的动画或装饰，仅因有五彩纸屑就称其“令人愉悦”，为打造惊艳瞬间而忽略核心体验的痛点。

Principle Tensions

原则冲突

No formula. Leaning into one principle sometimes feels like compromising another. Use judgment.

Tension	How to navigate
Agency vs. Simplicity	More control = more complexity. Offer smart defaults + progressive disclosure for power users.
Familiarity vs. Innovation	Follow convention for standard actions; innovate where you have genuine reason to.
Flexibility vs. Simplicity	More options = more cognitive load. Personalization > defaults; let users opt into complexity.
Responsibility vs. Agency	Safety guardrails can feel restrictive. Make safeguards feel like help, not surveillance.
Craft vs. Shipping	Perfect is the enemy of shipped. Craft what's visible; don't polish what no one will see.

没有固定公式。侧重某一项原则有时会感觉是在妥协另一项原则。需运用判断力。

冲突	应对方式
自主性 vs 简洁性	更多控制=更多复杂性。为普通用户提供智能默认设置，为高级用户逐步披露更多功能。
熟悉感 vs 创新性	标准操作遵循惯例；仅在有充分理由时进行创新。
灵活性 vs 简洁性	更多选项=更多认知负担。个性化设置优于默认设置；让用户自行选择是否开启复杂功能。
责任感 vs 自主性	安全防护措施可能会让用户感到受限。让防护措施看起来是帮助，而非监视。
精致度 vs 发布节奏	完美是完成的敌人。打磨可见的部分；不要在无人关注的细节上浪费精力。

Design Scorecard Format

设计评分卡格式

When producing a full critique, use this structure:

undefined

如需完整评审，请使用以下结构：

undefined

Design Review: [Name of screen/feature/flow]

Summary

[1-2 sentences: overall verdict]

Principle-by-principle assessment

Principle	Rating	Key observation
Purpose	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...
Agency	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...
Responsibility	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...
Familiarity	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...
Flexibility	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...
Simplicity	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...
Craft	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...
Delight	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...

✅ Strong ⚠ Needs attention ❌ Missing/broken

Principle	Rating	Key observation
Purpose	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...
Agency	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...
Responsibility	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...
Familiarity	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...
Flexibility	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...
Simplicity	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...
Craft	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...
Delight	✅ / ⚠ / ❌	...

✅ Strong ⚠ Needs attention ❌ Missing/broken

Top 3 issues (prioritized)

[Most critical issue + why it matters + how to fix it]
...
...

[Most critical issue + why it matters + how to fix it]
...
...

What's working well

Recommended next steps


Skip the scorecard for narrow questions — just answer directly using the relevant principle(s).


若为窄范围问题，可跳过评分卡——直接使用相关原则作答即可。